A different way of providing Charitable Food.

I believe providing food for the poor and destitute is a nice way that people show their humanity. However, in some ways it is counter productive towards ending poverty. This is because when people have food, they will engage in normal human activities including reproduction. This simply adds to the number of hungry people needing food, unless of course, the needy family becomes self-sufficient. I don't think many believe that a family should be having children, if they cannot afford to take care of themselves. There is no lack of people in the world. My idea is to put a temporary birth control agent in the charitable food. This would have to be done safely and wilh full public disclosure and understanding of the recipients. Simply put, those receiving the food, male and female, would be temporarily unable to have children while they were receiving charitable food. When they are able to support themselves, they would then be able to reproduce. Any thoughts?

This idea is quite close to eugenics. Or at least, it runs into the same counterargument that occurs when discussing eugenics. You're effectively taking away people's right to reproduce, something that is very difficult to reason is beneficial, the potential benefits of which don't really out way the moral dilemma.

I would argue that current food and economic (poverty) crises are not a result of overpopulation, but that overpopulation is a result of these issues. Countries that have a higher GDP have a lower birth rate and we know the direction of this link because one does occur before the other. Edit: the direction is that higher economic status causes a lower birth rate, due to a reduction in child mortality and other factors.

What, then, is causing those crises? I would argue it is an issue of inequality. I think that the earth can support all of the people living on it, but we allow some people to consume far more than they need to. I think that if we choose carefully what collective human productivity should be working towards then human lives might become a higher priority than luxury items.

A large portion of the world's output is spent on military or defence. It just seems counter-intuitive that we're willing to spend more resources on killing people than in finding ways for them to live comfortably. And if these people can live and work, then the world can benefit from their output.

I have no problem with people reproducing and living their lives in any way they see fit, if they have the means to support themselves. Whether or not the system is fair right now is not the point. It may take a century to get to an economic stasis. If they cannot support themselves, should they be having more children? This would not be done without their knowledge. If they want to have children, they would just have to find means to support themselves.

That argument suggests that is then entirely through your own merits that you can support yourself or children. That your successes have nothing to do with the country you were born in, the parents you had, the school you went to or any help you've had from anyone. It seems like you're saying that you alone have achieved your ability to support having children and anyone who has not accomplished this has simply not worked hard enough. It's like you're saying that these people cannot exercise what is, in my opinion, a human right simply due to factors out of their control and that you, or I, or anyone better off should do nothing to help them, regardless of the advantages we may have received.

You are suggesting that they are weak, helpless, and ineffective. First world countries do have many advantages over third world countries which give them the opportunity to flourish. However, having children when they are already living in poverty will not help their situation but prolong it. If a society is to survive it must be self-sustaining. The food that is given is being treated as any other part of their environment, like picking fruit off a tree. If there is no incentive to change their behavior why should they? They will raise the next generation on charitable food without even thinking twice about it. Nothing will change, no lesson learned.

I wasn't trying to suggest they were weak or helpless, just that they have had less opportunities than others. Many societies are not self-sustaining, that's why national debt exists in western countries. It seems like you're suggesting that the only factor at play in whether a society develops is its birth rate, something that is entirely untrue.

I am not blaming the birth rate for their cultural development. My only argument really is that people should be able to feed themselves if they are going to have children. Who am I to criticize what decisions they make regarding having children? And as long as that Food Aid keeps on flowing, they should be able to live in dependecy for an eternity.

Yes, and it is a moral principle as well. It isn't right for others to have to pay for increasing the dependency. I want to help, but I won't give money to a self-destructive cause. If someone is begging for food, there should be several prior concerns addressed before children are brought into the situation..